On 2011-09-06 10:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 10:27:45AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2011-09-06 10:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 09:18:13AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> @@ -401,36 +403,58 @@ int pci_vpd_truncate(struct pci_dev *dev, size_t size) >>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_vpd_truncate); >>>>>> >>>>>> /** >>>>>> - * pci_block_user_cfg_access - Block userspace PCI config reads/writes >>>>>> + * pci_block_cfg_access - Block PCI config reads/writes >>>>> >>>>> This comment seems confusing. We don't in fact block all config >>>>> reads writes. Instead we block userspace accesses and >>>>> concurrent block requests. >>>> >>>> I'm open for a better suggestion that summarize the more verbose (and >>>> hopefully clearer) explanation below. >>> >>> I think the problem is, it doesn't block config access >>> and we call it pci_block_cfg_access. >>> >>> Thinking about it, doesn't this behave somewhat like a lock? >>> How about >>> >>> pci_user_cfg_access_trylock >>> pci_user_cfg_access_lock >>> pci_user_cfg_access_unlock >>> >>> And then: >>> * pci_user_cfg_access_lock - Lock userspace PCI config access >> >> Except that the "userspace" here is still only half of the truth > > It's the name of the lock :) Ah, blind. That has to be change as well of course (pci_cfg_access_*lock). Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
